Don’t miss Michelle Malkin’s extraordinary round up on this story, and rightfully points out that even sales clerks can play a key role in our defense by being vigilant. Excellent point

UPDATE II:

Mac Ranger has more on these ‘slugs’ trying to kill us. As I pointed out to Mac, he was being too kind. Slugs don’t deserve firing squads.

UPDATE III:

Some on the left feel there is little proof the one incident in Midland is terror cell related. Well, we shall see. But the story we linked to references multiple similar incidents across the nation – not just one! And the question of whether there is a link to a known cell, or we are now discovering a previously unknown cell, dispatches the ‘logic’ that not being tide to a known cell makes all this OK. Finally, the Dept of Justice is not going to continue an investigation into a false lead. So their continued focus on this is more telling than all the liberal ostriching – IMHO.

So while the left tries to rationalize this away (for the obvious reason that, if true, the story would continue to destroy the left’s credibility on national defense, and therefore destroy all their political power) we will watch and see how things unfold. Right now all the reporting shows this is serious, and possibly dangerous.

END UPDATE

The NY Times leak is damaging our defense against another terrorist attack here in the US. Our reader MerryJ1 alerted us to this article describing how the terrorists have adapted to the news of monitoring their calls

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones â€” which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card â€” have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

“There’s very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don’t have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don’t, frankly, know who bought this,” said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.
…
The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.

In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.

In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

I bet that contacts to certain ‘targets’ overseas are now flowing through some of these purchased phones. We heard VA Sen Allen say that when the NY Times treason happened that there were adjustments in communications (though for the life of me I cannot find my post on his comments). Now we know of one possible adjustment – right here in the US.

And if someone wants to think this is not about terrorism

The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.

Hmmm. And there is one lame excuse I am not buying

Law enforcement sources say it is possible some large purchases that have been identified as being sent to the Middle East could have been sent for resale in a sellers’ market for handsets, or simply given to friends and relatives. Officials are also investigating these possibilities.

Well, this is not legal exporting – but US cellular protocols (formats) are different than those in Europe, and I suspect in the ME. And since when can you buy ‘minutes’ here and use them overseas? You can’t.

The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:

“Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation,” the report said. “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.

There you go Risen. If you ever needed evidence you are a Benedict Arnold this is it. And if we do get attacked because of these adjustments by terrorists – you and the NY Times will have the blood of innocents on your hands.

25 Responses to “NY Times Leak Is Damaging Our Defenses”

Look – I don’t mind people changing their position, but admit you are changing your position. The very first sentence in your original comment was wrong and I pointed out it was wrong. And now you admit it was wrong, while trying to claim you never mean what you wrote.

And in trying explain you never meant what you wrote, you make another big blunder. The FISA court DID overstep its authority and try to tell the FBI what information it could retain in May 2002. That attempt to control the use of information included numerous claims by the FISA Court that it was the essence of the Gorelick Wall, controlling the flow of information between law enforcement and intelligence efforts.

I did warn you not to post too much because it would expose you lack of knowledge. Why not read up on the subject here

Look – I donâ€™t mind people changing their position, but admit you are changing your position. The very first sentence in your original comment was wrong and I pointed out it was wrong. And now you admit it was wrong, while trying to claim you never mean what you wrote.

i don’t get it. how am i changing my position? my first sentence in my original post (other than when i was quoting SBD was a question, not a statement:

“can you give me a citation from FISA that says that?”

the next 3 sentences were statements about how i interpret the statute:

“iâ€™ve read the statute and, as i recall FISA only talks about the procedures for secretly wiretapping someone. itâ€™s not about â€œseizing phone recordsâ€, itâ€™s about listening in and (presumably) recording them.”

how did i change my position later? FISA is about wiretaps, not seizing phone records. i don’t think i ever said otherwise. please explain where i contradicted myself. i’m just not seeing it

And in trying explain you never meant what you wrote, you make another big blunder. The FISA court DID overstep its authority and try to tell the FBI what information it could retain in May 2002. That attempt to control the use of information included numerous claims by the FISA Court that it was the essence of the Gorelick Wall, controlling the flow of information between law enforcement and intelligence efforts.

okay, now i think you’re not understanding my comments. where did i say that the FISA court did not ever overstep its authority? where did i discuss the gorelick wall? personally, i don’t think that’s what this controversy is all about. indeed, i’ve been consistently saying that this whole thing is not about the sharing of information between agencies. bush’s authorization of the NSA to conduct wireless wiretaps is a separate matter.

I did warn you not to post too much because it would expose you lack of knowledge. Why not read up on the subject here

sigh. look, if it makes you feel any better i freely admit i don’t know everything about this. call me ignorant, uninformed, stupid, whatever you want. i really don’t mind. i would like to have a constructive conversation about this. is that a problem?

put another way: if i am wrong, i want you to explain to me where i went wrong. i am perfectly willing to change my mind if you or anyone else can show me that i’m off track. i only ask that you extend the same courtesy to me and my points.

with each comment i have tried to address everything you say point-by-point. in response, you claimed that i contradicted myself (without explaining what that contradiction was) and then brought up what i believe to be a different issue (the gorelick wall, etc). if we’re talking about what critics of the bush administration are all excited about, then, as a bona fide critic, i’m right. it is a different issue. i’m simply not excited in this case over the gorelick wall. i am excited over the fact that the president violated FISA in authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless wiretaps. you haven’t responded to my points at all. nor did you respond to my request for a single hypothetical situation where the NYTimes article endangered national security.

sorry for all the “yous” in that paragraph. i don’t want to come across as accusatory or nasty. i really do want friendly conversation over this issue. as i said, i am perfectly willing to change my position if you can demonstrate that i am wrong about something. consider this an opportunity to educate and convert someone from the other side.

but a conversation means mutual respect. and that means considering my points and answering my questions. rather than calling me “misinformed,” inform me.

hey, i just checked back here and realized that i looked at the wrong comment when i quoted the first sentence of my first comment here. it doesn’t change my point, but to be accurate here is the first sentence of my very first comment on this site:

“look, i hate to burst your bubble but it looks like the midland terrorist cell doesnâ€™t exist”

it doesn’t change the rest of my point. i still don’t see how i contradicted that sentence later. but i’m all for accuracy. i’m sorry for any confusion the beginning of my last comment may have caused